Twitter Deletes Tweet from President of Nigeria Because Twitter Disagrees with His Take on Nigerian Politics

He muzzled himself. But it was Twitter who silenced his hopes and dreams.

This is Twitter deciding what the president of Nigeria is allowed to communicate to his own citizens.

They claim that they have a right to moderate Nigeria’s politics.


Twitter on Wednesday deleted a remark on Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s account for violating its rules, after he referred to the country’s civil war in the context of recent unrest.

Buhari, a former general, made a statement on Tuesday referring to recent violence in the southeast, where officials have blamed separatists for attacks on police and election offices.

Half a century ago, one million people died during a 30-month civil war after separatist generals declared an independent region for the Igbo people in Nigeria’s southeast.

“Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Nigerian Civil War,” his tweet said. “Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand.”

Twitter removed the remark, noting it had violated its rules.

A similar remark was still on the Nigerian presidency’s official Twitter account.

Buhari’s Minister of Information Lai Mohammed fired back saying while Twitter had its own rules, the president had the right to comment on the situation in Nigeria.

He accused Twitter of ignoring messages from Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB separatist group, which he said promoted violence.

Mohammed also referred to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s call last year for bitcoin donations to the #EndSARS protests last year in Nigeria against police brutality.

“We have a country to rule and we will do so to the best of our ability,” Mohammed told reporters. “Twitter mission in Nigeria citing those two examples is very suspect. What is their agenda?”

Good question, Mohammed.

It’s a rhetorical question, I’m sure.

Their agenda is global control. They are part of a global control network.

Why on earth a sovereign nation would allow them to operate with impunity and shut down freedom of speech within their borders – I have no idea.

It just simply isn’t logical that any of these countries allow Twitter to come in, become the de facto communications platform by offering that service for free, and then take over the nation’s politics.

This has been happening in Russia for years now.

It also happened in Uganda, and the… Ugandanese… actually had the fortitude to just ban the company from operating (at least for a while, during an election).